Religion, colonising & trade

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1834114039

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-222204

Document type:: Monograph

Author:: Lucas, Charles Prestwood http://d-nb.info/gnd/101180705

Title:: Religion, colonising & trade

Place of publication:: London

Publisher:: Soc. for Promoting Christian Knowledge

Year of publication:: 1930

Scope:: 84 Seiten

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

38¢ PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [PART 111 administering the criminal law in that respect, they thought that this construction of the statute received support from the arrangements made in the statute for the trial, the form of the indictment, &c. It was plainly implied in their opinion that the venue, which was New South Wales, and the juris- diction should be sufficient unless the contrary were shown. Upon the face of this record the offence is charged to have been committed in Missouri, in the United States of America, and it therefore appears to their Lordships that it is manifestly shown, beyond all possibility of doubt, that the offence charged was an offence which, if committed at all, was committed in another country, beyond the jurisdiction of the Colony of New South Wales. The result, as it appears to their Lordships, must be that there was no jurisdiction to try the alleged offender for this offence, and that this conviction should be set aside. Their Lordships think it right to add that they are of opinion that if the wider construction had been applied to the statute, and it was supposed that it was intended thereby to com- prehend cases so wide as those insisted on at the bar, it would have been beyond the jurisdiction of the Colony to enact such a law. Their jurisdiction is confined within their own territories, and the maxim which has been more than once quoted, Extra territorium jus dicenti impune non paretur, would be applicable to such a case. Lord Wensley- dale, when Baron Parke, advising the House of Lords in Jefferys v. Boosey! expresses the same proposition in very terse language. He says: ‘The Legislature has no power over any persons except its own subjects—that is, persons natural-born subjects, or resident, or whilst they are within the limits of the kingdom. The Legislature can impose no duties except on them; and when legislating for the benefit of persons, must, prima facie, be considered to mean the benefit of those who owe obedience to our laws, and whose ‘nterests the Legislature is under a correlative obligation to protect.” All crime is local. The jurisdiction over the crime belongs to the country where the crime is committed, and, oxcept over her own subjects, Her Majesty and the Imperial Legislature have no power whatever. It appears to their Lordships that the effect of giving the wider interpretation to this statute necessary to sustain this indictment would be to comprehend a great deal more than Her Majesty's 4H. L. R. 815,at p. 926. Cf. Letroy, Legislative Power in Canada, p. 321.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: error

Monograph

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation